Joan Peterson has decided to implement a commenting policy. Sebastian has some interesting observations on it.
My First thought when I was reading the post was “Is she even going to make a remote attempt to follow her own rules?”. It’s been well documented before that people running anti-gun blogs with comment sections will often claim rules violations for deleting a post, but in actuality no such violations can be found.
This has lead to the habit of keeping a log of your comments and then publishing the unpublished comments on your own blog. There are too many such posts to count out there.
Well Joan doesn’t even want to APPEAR consistent. Read these comments below.
I was wondering when you would weigh in, Bryan. You are one of the most published commenter on my blog. I got tired of you making so many comments the other day that I asked you to take a rest. Maybe that’s why not all of your comments get published.
You see, while he’s not rude, inappropriate, or in violation of her rules…he was just commenting “Too Much”. I guess that’s a hidden rule.
Bob S.- I believe I stopped publishing your comments quite a while ago.
Now we all know Bob, as a matter of fact Christina said when she met him she was “constantly looking for his Halo”. Look I’m a crass, salty dude who has ZERO sympathy for the Anti-Gun types. I was there, I was anti-gun, seemed like a good idea, and a noble cause…until I looked at the facts. I either had to sell my soul and lie that a cause that gets good people killed and does NOTHING to disarm violent and dangerous people, and makes life harder for lawful people looking to protect their lives, enjoy sport and collecting, and practice their constitutional rights.
Sorry, people who support Gun control on a professional or semi-professional level are evil whores, and I’m not afraid of calling them that.
Now people like Bob and Bryan have a lot more patience than me, and follow Joan’s foolish rules, and still get deleted.
The bottom line is Joan Peterson is a liar, and a peddler of misinformation. Those of us who comment on anti-gun blogs simply do it to challenge the lies and sideways arguments.
For the lie to be kept alive they can’t let every argument stand. While she lies that she is following a posted policy now, she also makes it clear that she isn’t interested in actually following it.
Why do you guys keep giving her traffic? Arguing with Japete is like arguing with a two year old. She makes factual errors, you point them out, and she either accuses you of “attacking” her, or simply says “Nuh-uh!” And now she has codified this policy!
She’s gotten boring, dude. 🙂
I give her traffic because I want people to see what the Brady Campaign and Joyce Foundation really are.
She’s boring at times, at times amusing. All the times she’s insane and a vetted board member of the Brady Campaign, and the Spokeswoman for a Minnesota Joyce Astroturf.
Not only are these the only people they can get, but also they are totally fine with this class of people being the face of gun control.
I agree with George, for the most part. I very rarely visit her site anymore, for the simple fact that she just doesn’t respond to anything – it goes down the memory hole. Coincidently I did happen to read that post yesterday, and I too thought it was rather hypocritical and amusing.
One thing I always note about Joan is her egotistical view that by “publishing our comments” she is doing people a favor. Now, looking at the majority of her visitors, almost everyone has their own blog / website, so there is really no need to have our opinions posted on her kitchy pastel socialist manifesto. I could personally care less if she refused to publish my comments, but I do like to argue/debate, and it would be nice to receive a response – any response – especially when one goes through the trouble of developing a thoughtful comment, succinctly written and containing a link or fact as backup.
Additionally, Joan is constantly complaining about all these supposed “racist, sexist, threatening, etc.” remarks that are never published. Frankly, I think she is lying or greatly exaggerating. Joan does her level best to paint gun owners as one inch short of going off the deep end, and I think she would jump on blog fodder comments such as those like a fly on stink. “See what these ‘law abiding’ gun owners threaten to do to me…”
Rules for thee, not for me.
Only on the rarest occasion Do I comment on her site. Even my most polite questions like “Can you please cite your data” as an Anonymous commenter (because she asked me to no comment because I called her “hon”) It isn’t worth it to me to type a comment that has a 90% chance of never seeing the light of day no matter what I type and how nice I am.
As for the comments that she claims are so threatening, she’s lying whenever else she talks, why not about that?
This morning was the first time I’ve even read her blog, and found it interesting that the overwhelming majority of commenters sliced her arguments to ribbons. She likes to respond to most of her comments as well, although she frequently tells them that they are missing her point. If she just wants to get on a soap box, why does she even have a comment section?
What jumped right out at me was how she claimed ownership of the facts in her Rule 10. (I just commented on her blog about that, so we’ll see if it gets posted.) Another thing was the lack of supporters that comment on her posts. No, “I agree with you.”, or “Keep up the good fight.”; stuff like that. Just lucid, well-supported responses pointing out the innacuracies in her arguments. I say good job everyone, and keep it up.
Yeah she’s constantly crowing that the majority of America agrees with her….oddly enough none of them can be bothered to comment on her blog, and certainly not engage any of our rebuttals.
Well, I noticed she changed Rule 10 removing the word “my”, and replacing it with “the” after I commented on it. Of course she had to further qualify her definition of the facts!
“It may mean we differ on the source of the facts but sometimes facts are facts.” Whatever that is supposed to mean!
I also noticed she doesn’t allow follow-up comments by anyone. (Kaveman pointed this out on SIH, confirmed by JayF.) My follow-up hasn’t shown up, and I suspect in part because I suggested she add the NRA’s Eddie Eagle site linked on her sidebar! (I provided the link.) Hopefully she looked up the latin phrase “Nosce Hostem Tuum” (know your enemy) I ended my original comment with!
Thanks for pointing out this blog! I’ve probably spent to much time on it this morning (and drank to much coffee!), but I appreciate the info.
Another thing was the lack of supporters that comment on her posts. No, “I agree with you.”, or “Keep up the good fight.”; stuff like that.
Well, as I commented over at Walls of the City:
“Well, the folks who agree with the professional hoplophobic class may not be a majority, but they certainly have the silent thing down pat.”
Weer’d,
Add to the fact that Joan’s statement about my comments makes her a liar.
I can show proof that I have had comments published, many many times on her blog.
They have been published as coming from “anonymous” not my normal online brand of Bob S.
So, when I comment as Bob S. she refuses to publish them but the same general type and tone of comments coming from “anonymous” gets publish.
Prejudiced? Bigoted? Not sure of the right term that applies here.
Egotistical Liar?
Joan’s site is one of the BEST sites to demonstrate the utter idiocy of the gun-banner’s “logic.” Her comments and assertions that she has many other readers that support her, yet, where are they?, is great proof of the LACK of support. When all you have commenting in support are Laci, Baldr, And MikeB, you really shouldn’t be claiming wide support. ESPECIALLY if you are not a small blogger, but a leader in the gun control world. I love her way of cutting off discussion. Its so……. childish? Is that the right word? Her rules are the same. They are repetitive but boiled down the the essence is…they just describe what she already does. She’s just “explaining” it now.
I don’t read that site for her posts. I read it for the comments. They help me develop my arguments to be more cogent.
You see my latest post? The fact that intelegent people don’t support this in part validates our side.
The other part is of course facts.
Agreed. Honing one’s argumentative skills against anti rights morons helps when meeting someone who is unsure or uninformed but is able to form thoughtful conclusions based on sound evidence.
Some say arguing with Joan is a waste of time, but personally I feel that it’s practice when speaking with someone who matters.
Duuude…..too funny. HAD to point it out…..
intelegent people
Honestly, her site gives me a blistering headache… The contortions her mind must go through to write the things she does are mind-boggling, and trying to track her train of thought through her meandering drivel is like trying to follow an albino rabbit in a snowstorm… *boing* overthere… *boing* overthere…*boing* overthere…
The only consistent pattern she can manage to maintain in all of her self-absorbed gos-se is that firearms are bad. Period. Full stop. End of story. No matter who is holding them. No matter who used them. No matter their use. Firearms are bad.
Not that it really matters any, but I honestly have to wonder if she was learning disabled as a child…
In any case, regarding this most recent nonsense, the funny part about Sebastian’s post is that someone actually pointed it out to her, and she whinged about his not coming over to her site and expressing his thoughts there. Yeah. ‘Cause that works so well for anyone who dares disagree with her.
*shrug* In the end, Joan’s “policy” told us what we all already knew – unless you agree with her, or at least indicate that you might consider her lies to be plausible, you are simply not permitted to comment. No dissent is allowed. No facts that put her or her organizations in a poor light are allowed. No disagreements are allowed. And while she can and does feel perfectly comfortable maligning and insulting all firearm owners in America, you may not reciprocate regarding anti-rights cultists.
Bleh. I started that “cultist” thing with a certain degree of tongue-in-cheek-ness, but damned if she did not live up to it…
She reminds me a lot of Robyn Ringler from NYAGV. Ran her blog the same way. Made emotional arguments supported by other gun control sites (especially the gun guys) and contradicted herself regularly. Deleted numerous comments as ‘abusive’ when most of them were very polite but allowed any insulting/offensive garbage through from her few supporters.
It was really funny when she declared ‘gangbanger’ was some sort of racist code word (sound familiar?) and refused to publish any comments containing it.